Friday, May 18, 2007

NewsThe San Diego Union Tribune posts that finally after 5 days in a hearing room which has at times been contentious Floyd Landis will take the stand in his own defense tomorrow:

His folks and wife, who have sat stoically through these five days, should be on hand again. And maybe the hearing room, essentially void of public spectators since Monday, will fill up, too.

The schedule, with Landis' name on it, came out at the end of a long day of testimony Friday.

Reuters writes about the testimony today of former cyclist Joe Papp who admitted using testosterone gel in an effort to more quickly recover from tough stages in long bike races, something which the Floyd Landis defense had claimed would not be of use.

Canada.com posts an Eddie Pells (AP) piece written late Friday afternoon on testimony at the Floyd Landis vs USADA hearings. Pells first describes Joe Papp, former cyclist,who discusses how he used testosterone gel to his advantage as a competitor, how it helped him recover from difficult stages of a bike race, and how he stayed under the detection limit in doing so thus contradicting Landis' claims that the PED for which he tested positive would be of no benefit. The next witness called, Bruce Goldberger a professor from the University of Florida, was the first to testify for Landis:

He described himself as initially reluctant to get involved in the case.

“But I saw some glaring issues with the way the chemistry was performed in the laboratory,” Goldberger said of the French lab where the tests were done.

Earlier in the week, the Landis lawyers had used cross-examination of USADA witnesses to set up these arguments. But Goldberger was the first witness to connect the dots of the argument.

As for gaps in the chain of custody, Goldberger said: “Terrible. Omissions in the chain of custody should demonstrate lack of attention.”

Earlier in the afternoon Christiane Ayotte finshed her appearance for USADA and under cross examination made one of the few concessions to the defense throughout her testimony:

Ayotte conceded the peaks in the graphs didn’t show the good “separation” the lawyers contend is needed in these graphs.

“But anyone can see the peak is nine times higher than the epi” peak, Ayotte said. “It’s more than 9-to-1.”

She said she came to that conclusion by eyeballing the graph.

“Is eyeballing it acceptable?” lawyer Howard Jacobs asked.

“No,” Ayotte replied.It was one of the few concessions the Landis team got from the lab director.

ESPN's The Magazine Shaun Assael writes that fans of Floyd Landis who contributed to the FFf, have been cheated by people who felt they were part of "The Sopranos".This is in reference to the harassing phone call Landis' former manager made to Greg LeMond, but:

Fortunately for Floyd, the people who donated to his fund don't seem to be having any buyer's remorse … at least not yet.

The San Francisco Chronicle posts Eddie Pells' AP afternoon report on what has been a much quieter day today at the Landis hearings. Landis lawyer MauriceSuh asked Dr. Christiane Ayotte, who is an USADA expert, if she thought there were significant differences in some test results performed on the machine that analyzed Landis' urine:

"There's one difference for one peak on a 'B' sample, and that's it," she said. "It doesn't create doubt about the rest of it."

Eurosport writes that fired Landis manage Will Geoghegan has issued an apology for a perceived threatening phone call to former Tour de France winner and USADA witness Greg LeMond:

Geoghegan's statement read: "I apologise to Greg LeMond and his family for the distress I caused by my call.

"I also apologise to the arbitration panel and to Floyd Landis and his legal team for the distraction.

"I have been very angry about how unfair this whole proceeding is to Floyd, a great friend and a greater champion, and stupidly tried to take out my anger on Greg.

The CyclingNews posts the apology written by FFF Executive Director Michael Henson in response to the phone call made by former Landis manager Will Geoghegan:

In a letter to Cyclingnews, Michael Henson, Executive Director of the Floyd Fairness Fund, clarified the position. "In light of the news coverage of yesterday’s testimony at the Floyd Landis arbitration hearing, we are writing to clarify that Will Geoghegan, who served as Floyd’s business manager until being fired yesterday, had no formal role with the FFF.

In addition to this, it was also discussed at today's session of the Landis hearings that perhaps Mr. Geoghegan should be compelled to return to testify since he was not present at the arbitration hearing today:

At the end of the morning session, one of USADA's lawyers, Mr. Barnett, asked the panel if Mr. Geoghegan would be indeed returning to testify, as he was about to take the stand when Mr. Suh asked for a break so that Mr. Geoghegan could consult legal counsel. Mr. Barnett implied that the absence of Mr. Geoghegan from the proceedings today indicated that the Landis side was "trying to hide Mr. Geoghegan."

The panel responded that they have no authority to compel Mr. Geoghegan to appear and testify, as would be the case in a civil or criminal court. Mr. Suh responded to this, saying, "As the panel well knows, there were issues brought up by Mr. LeMond which made it entirely appropriate for him to have legal counsel. We took a break yesterday so that Mr. Geoghegan could consult legal counsel."

PE.Com publishes Will Geoghegan's apology for the phone call he made to Greg LeMond the night before LeMond's testimony at yesterday's Landis hearings.VeloNews has Oscar Pereiro, last year's Tour de France runner-up and presumptive champion depending on the outcome of the Landis hearings, still insisting that he will leave cycling rather than submit to DNA testing in the OP investigation:

"I'm disgusted at this pathetic journalism that some practice, that they repeat rumors to promote a lie," Pereiro said. "Someone says that Urko is a mythological dog from Galicia, when in reality the name of this animal is written with a ‘c' - Urco. Urko with a ‘k' is a hill in the Basque Country."

BlogsRant has the first update from today's testimony at the Landis hearings. It involves the cross examinations of Dr. Christiane Ayotte and Dr. Corinne Buisson and concerns among other things, the training of the previous two employees of the LNDD who were interviewed earlier this week. In his second update this afternoon Rant tells us that he thinks Dr Ayotte has made USADA's case more difficult:

. This time, she’s said something that sounds like it’s shot a major hole in the USADA case:

q: this is to make sure you identify the T and E?a: for some tests, T or progesteron, that is possible; for E, which is small I have not often seen a lab that can meet the criteria for the E. there’s a limit to the identification and quantification.

q: EX 24, USADA ,

[ deceaurriz and mongongu do not look happy on he video feed. ]

I think Dr. Ayotte just said that for such a low epitestosterone reading, it’s very difficult to actually identify and quantify the amount of epitestosterone correctly. I may be wrong on that, but this exchange seems to be heading in that direction

In Rant's last update of the day he outlines the testimony of Joe Papp, who made a deal with USADA to tell his story of testosterone use, and Dr. Bruce Goldberger who was the first witness to testify for Landis.

ElTrav.com thinks we need only look into Floyd Landis' eyes to know he "juiced".

Independent Freewheeling Chicks thinks that to drink and dial is the height of stupidity, and who does that anyway in the age of caller ID?Blessed Endurance feels that cycling is now sporting porn, all artifice and no real substance. He also thinks that Joe Papp was an effective witness for USADA against Floyd Landis.For the Love of Sports wonder why Americans care about the Floyd Landis controversy since it's only cycling, and he thinks it's because Americans LOVE scandal.

Tim's Thoughtful Spot thinks that the Landis hearings started out with a certain degree of sanity, which has now been lost.

Hey Norton says that if you like the OC you will love cycling's latest soap opera, yesterday's Greg Lemond testimony at the Landis hearings.

GFisk.com thinks that you couldn't script yesterday's events at at the Landis hearing if you tried.

The Michigan Daily doesn't get why Greg LeMond chose Pepperdine Law school. and the Landis hearings to confess his abuse as a child.

Lin_M thinks that not only is Floyd Landis guilty, but that he makes Tonya Harding look classy. That does seem harsh.

You have been critical of Landis, and ready to assume the TDF throne, what is it you say that is any different than what Landis has said if he is a doper and you are not?

You had no problem with rumors and lies about Landis, why the sudden change of heart? Or is it only rumor and lies when its about you?

Why are you not willing to prove your innocence with DNA? Did you dope or do you just not trust the sports authorities(Judge, Jury and Executioner)? If you don't trust the system again what is it that makes your proclaimed innocence any different than Landis?

come on Atown. Floyd wouldn't give DNA in the same situation. They were both friends until it came to the Tour. It is sad that the whole pro tour is falling apart. You absolutely have to give oscar the benefit of the doubt because that is what you are giving Floyd.

I'm always struck when riders say they won't give DNA. If I was unfairly accused of a crime and knew I could exonerate myself with a DNA test, I'd jump at the chance. Those who are innocent have nothing to hide.

Pro cyclists are well paid celebrities who regularly pee in a cup and are subjected to all kinds of other invasions of privacy. I don't think the pro peleton can rely on an "innocent until proven guilty" posture anymore, especially when Oscar presumably has the ability to prove his innocence relative to Puerto, if he wants to.

Sure...let's just end this now because Floyd is guilty and so is everyone else. I understand if those races required you to do something before hand to prove that you aren't taking anything, but the rules were that he didn't have to give dna. You can't call him guilty because without proving it because that was the deal that was in place.

Jeepers !, I'm glad to get past the 'Lemond incident'. That scared the sh1t out of me. I've thought in the past that this is the case which 'keeps on giving' and I've yet to be disappointed.

Don't be too hard on Oscar. I don't believe he's really attacked Floyd and he happens to be a pretty good cyclist himself. In fact, if I recall correctly, in 2005 both he and Floyd were considered leaders of the Phonak team (there was no clear decision). They were both good enough.

"I'm always struck when riders say they won't give DNA. If I was unfairly accused of a crime and knew I could exonerate myself with a DNA test, I'd jump at the chance. Those who are innocent have nothing to hide."

And you would blindly trust the lab to be able to produce an accurate reult?

DNA tests are a different thing from urine analysis. DNA tests are routinely held up in a court of law. I don't agree with what he said, but don't start blaming DNA labs for inacurate results,,,they are very accurate.

1. Floyd put his test results out there on the internet for anyone to see, and has insisted on an open hearing. This is not normal behavior for someone who has something to hide.

2. DNA tests may be held up in a court of law, but as we have already established here at TBV, this is an arbitration hearing, not a court of law. If it were an actual court of law, instructions (aka laws & SOP) would be followed. I can understand the riders' reluctance to even give DNA, when samples are not only mislabeled, but then destroyed, as are original files. Perhaps fingerprinting is the answer?

3. I have no problem with people not agreeing with Floyd, if they present rational statements supporting that opinion. I do have a problem with people who keep calling names like 'roid Floyd because they don't have anything intelligent to contribute to the discussion. That is third grade behavior. It is up to TBV, but I wish he would delete posts that are only name-calling. They are a distraction to what is an otherwise meaningful discussion of evidence, pro OR con.

ON point 2. Would you want LNDD doing your DNA test? I am sure that there are good and bad labs for that work. The reference to fingerprints is interesting. With the increasing use of DNA (where available) there has been increasing criticism of fingerprint evidence. It is bsed on an unproven assumption that no 2 are alike (just as for snow flakes) In addition, most fingerprint evidence depends on human interpretation of them an the number of points of similarlity. Lower number of points, lower probability, but I don't think that they have been able to quantify it. It's a lot like eye witness identifications. Jury's love 'em, but almost any cop or prosecutor will tell you that they are quite unreliable. Lots of the folks being freed from prison with DNA tests were convicted on eyewitness identifications and/or fingerprint expert testimony. sad but true.pcrosby

Total Poindexter Website Prize: to the fabulous geniuses over at trustbutverify, who not only are perhaps the most impassioned defenders of Floyd Landis' virtue beyond only the boy himself, but actually seem to understand the detailed scientific arguments they put out that the rest of us (well, me) are too stupid to even coherently summarize. Floyd, you better be innocent, or you owe these folks a *major* freakin' apology! (racejunkie)

"Who does awards for blogs? I sense a nomination is in order." (Carlton Reid, of BikeBiz)

"Hands-down champion of full-and I mean full-coverage of this hearing is the blog Trust But Verify. You'll have to have excellent background knowledge of the issues, and wade through page after page of detail to get to anything interesting, but it's raw and unfiltered and all there. The guy who runs the site, a cycling fan from Northern California, began casually providing a clearinghouse for Landis case news nearly 10 months ago, and now he has the haunted look of a man whose life has been hijacked and wants it back. (Loren Mooney, co-author of Positively False, at Bicycling)

"if you want the latest news on the Floyd Landis case, Trust but Verify is the go-to site. The author is biased in favor of Floyd (so am I) but the reporting is neutral and comprehensive." (12string musings)

About Me

About Us (Admissions)

TBV is personally biased towards Floyd. I think it'll be a better world if he proves his innocence, and some inquisitors meet their own just ends. Interspersed between daily link roundups are pieces of commentary slanted towards understanding what will prove innocence in the discipline proceeding, and what will rehabilitate his reputation in the public eye. Make of them what you will. Agreement with me is not required, though I am right.